as the land was assigned in the year 1937 before G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, was issued, the sale of the assigned land was not prohibited. He has accordingly recommended for grant of No Objection Certificate for sale of the land. - Having regard to the facts admitted by respondent No.2 in his letter referred to above, respondent No.3 cannot have any objection for sale of the land by the petitioner as the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, wherein for the first time prohibition on transfer of assigned lands situated in Andhra Area was prescribed. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.3 to receive and register the sale deed that may be presented by the petitioner subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.


WP 65 / 2013

WPSR 219136 / 2012

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SMT. S.M. USHA DEVI, ANANTAPUR DIST.  VSTHE DIST.COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, & 2 OTRS.
PET.ADV. : GOWDRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATIONDISTRICT:  ANANTAPUR
FILING DATE:  31-12-2012POSTING STAGE :  ADMISSION (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION )DISPOSED ON  :  03-01-2013  ANC
REG. DATE    :   02-01-2013LISTING DATE :  03-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY    

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.65 of 2013

Dated 03rd January, 2013
Between:

Smt.S.M.Usha Devi
            …Petitioner

and


The District Collector, Anantapur and others

            …Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.D.Gowd
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue


The Court made the following:


ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not receiving and registering the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of Acs.6.11 cents of land in Survey No.885 of Amarapuram Village and Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary.
A perusal of the record shows that 
respondent No.2 has addressed letter, bearing R.C.No.(A)130/2011, dated 26.10.2011, to respondent No.1, wherein he has inter alia traced the history of the above-mentioned land which shows that the land was assigned to one Pujari Cholaiah in D.A.R.Dis.No.199/46, dated 15.06.1937, under DC quota, that after the death of the assignee, his LRs sold the land to T.Thimmaiah, husband of the petitioner herein, vide registered sale deed, dated 11.01.1984, and that pattadar passbooks were issued on 02.09.1986.  
Respondent No.2 opined that as the land was assigned in the year 1937 before G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, was issued, the sale of the assigned land was not prohibited.  He has accordingly recommended for grant of No Objection Certificate for sale of the land.
At the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the case was passed over in the pre-lunch session.  On getting instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader confirmed the fact that respondent No.2 has addressed the above-mentioned letter to respondent No.1.
Having regard to the facts admitted by respondent No.2 in his letter referred to above, respondent No.3 cannot have any objection for sale of the land by the petitioner as the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, wherein for the first time prohibition on transfer of assigned lands situated in Andhra Area was prescribed.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.3 to receive and register the sale deed that may be presented by the petitioner subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.68 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

 

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

03rd January, 2013
VGB

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.